HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-15 Transcription Page 1
Council Present: Alter,Bergus,Dunn (via Zoom),Harmsen, Taylor, Teague, Thomas
Staff Present: Jones, Goers, Grace (via Zoom),Platz, Russett, Lehmann,Dulek, Sitzman,
Rummel,Knoche,Havel
Others Present: LeFevre,USG Liasion, Monsivais,Alternate
1. Presentation and Discussion of Amendments to Title 14,Zoning Code to Improve
Housing Choice,Increase Housing Supply,and Encourage Affordability
Teague: Well, it is 4:00 PM on August 15, 2023. And this is the City of Iowa City work session.
So I want to welcome everyone in the room and all the councilors. So we're going to start
with item number 1,with the presentation and discussion of amendments to Title 14,
zoning to improve housing choice, increase housing supply, and encourage affordability.
And welcome Anne.
Russett: Thank you,Mayor and council members. Anne Russett with neighborhood and
Development Services. Tonight,we're going to share with you a presentation that we
gave to the Planning and Zoning Commission on August 2nd. I'm going to kick off the
presentation with a little background and then Kirk is going to get into some more details,
just a heads up,um. We have a lot to cover. This presentation is about 45 minutes. This
slideshow's a general timeline of how we got where we are today. It started with the City
Council adopting its fust affordable housing action plan in 2016. The plan identified 15
action steps, including changes to zoning regulations. And the changes to the zoning
regulations were the only action item from that plan that haven't been completed. In 20-
2019,the city adopted a Fair Housing Choice Study,which reviewed impediments to
accessing housing because of protected class, such as race, gender, or disability as
codified in the Federal Fair Housing Act. This study included recommended actions to
affirmatively further fair housing based on extensive public inputs such as targeted
feedback from stakeholder interviews, focus groups, a fair housing survey,public events,
and a public adoption process. One of the most significant fair housing issues identified
was a lack of affordable rental housing. An improved housing choice was one of the
many strategies recommended to help address this issue. The city updated it's affordable
housing action plan in 2022 to build up previous efforts and supportive affordable
housing. A number of public input sessions were held, including a survey, general
outreach activities such as national night out and targeted stakeholder outreach meetings
and other events. And then, at the end of 2022,the City Council adopted the strategic
plan. One of the action steps included in the strategic plan is advancing prioritize
recommendations from the 2022 affordable housing action plan. We've also had several
meetings with the planning and zoning commission,which started in February of'23,
where we presented an initial summary of the proposed amendments that will be detailing
tonight. In April,we presented the results of the 2022 residential development analysis
for the city,which shows that residential growth is not keeping pace with demand. We
had additional meetings in July and August where staff presented the proposed changes
in more detail. And then at their meeting on August 2nd,the commission recommended
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 2
approval of the proposed changes,um,with the exception of the changes related to
accessory apartments. Housing affordability is a complex issue and there's no one
solution. There are many factors that influence affordability, income, educational
opportunities, cost of various necessities such as health care and child care. Housing
supply also impacts affordability. And our community is growing. However,housing
supply is not meeting the demand generated by the growth. When thinking about housing
afford- affordability,there is a role for zoning. Zoning regulations can restrict
development and act as a barrier to creating a diverse housing stock. Or it can support
and allow a diversity of housing options for our community. We are proposing
amendments to the code that help ensure we have a zoning code that doesn't act as a
barrier,but instead allows and encourages a diversity of housing types. The goals of the
proposed amendments include increasing housing supply to meet demand, increasing the
diversity of housing options to improve housing choice by removing barriers for housing
types that generally costs less than single-family detached home, such as town homes,
duplexes, and accessory apartments. We also want to incentivize and the development of
income restricted affordable housing through density bonuses and other tools. We want to
address fair housing issues to ensure persons with disabilities have equal access to
housing. And we want to implement the action items that are included in our adopted
plans. Again,there are multiple plans that support the proposed changes. This includes
the IC 2030 comprehensive plan,the proposed amendments aligned with the adopted
land use policy direction, as well as the other plans that I've already mentioned. As for
the strategic plan,the proposed amendments are tied to the city's core value for racial
equity, social justice, and human rights. With an effort to remove and address the
systemic barriers present in all facets of city government, including land-use decisions.
Also housing and neighborhoods impact area encourages updating the zoning code to
encourage compact neighborhoods with diverse housing types and land uses, and
addressing the unique needs of vulnerable populations. And lastly,the council's action
plan does recommend advancing the prioritized recommendations from the 2022
affordable housing action plan. So with that, I will turn it over to Kirk, who's gonna get
into the details.
Lehmann: Thank you Anne. Kirk Lehmann, associate planner. Uh, I'm going to try and be both
detailed and brief, and I will do my best to make a complicated, ah, set of zoning
changes, ah, simple to understand,hopefully. Ah,the way that the presentation is
organized as it's similar to the staff report where there are several proposed changes.
Under general categories,we have five general categories which include increasing
flexibility for a range of housing types,modifying design standards,providing additional
flexibility to enhance the supply of housing, creating regulatory incentives for affordable
housing and then also just addressing fair housing. Um,when we're looking at these, ah,
ea- each of these is going to start with a summary of the proposed amendments and then
we'll get into the analysis on amendment by amendment basis throughout the
presentation. So it's similar to the staff report like I said. Again,really what we're trying
to do is enable the construction of housing units that are more affordable than what's
currently allowed in a lot of those zones. And making sure that the zoning code is not a
barrier to the construction of affordable housing. And we really see it as a complement to
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 3
other programs that do more directly subsidize those low-income households, ah,within
the city. So the first set of changes is related to increasing flexibility for a range of
housing types,which includes four proposed changes. Ah, again,the purpose of this is
twofold. One, increasing the supply of housing and then two, increasing the diversity of
housing types available with a focus on housing types that tend to be more affordable.
And I'll provide examples of each of these as I get into my analysis as well, since it can
be hard to understand it when I just describe it. So- so the diagrams will be helpful later
on. Ah, I will also note that for the purpose of my presentation, ah, I tried to be less
technical than I am in my memo,um,because it is a very technical topic,but I want to
make sure that folks are able to understand it. So the first change is related to allowing
duplexes and up to two attached single-family units more widely and lower-density
residential single-family zones. So currently,we're looking at RS5 and RS8 zones.
Currently only allows these uses on comer lots. This proposed amendment would allow it
in mid block locations. The second change would be to allow town home style
multifamily uses in higher density single-family zones. That is the RS12 zone. And really
what we're looking at is currently these zones allow six side-by-side attached single-
family town homes. But if they're located on a common lot,that would not be allowed
under our current zoning because that's technically multifamily. So this would allow up
to six attached units on a single lot as a multifamily use within this zone, similarly to as
attached single-family is allowed. The third change is to streamline the process by which
second story residential uses are allowed in certain commercial zones, specifically the
community commercial or CC2 zone. And then also to enable the board of adjustment to
allow ground floor residential uses in commercial zones. So when I say board of
adjustment review, I'm talking about a special exception. For a special exception to be
approved, ah, it must-the board must find that it meets a set of general criteria that tie to
impacts the surrounding properties, and then also a set of specific criteria that this
proposed amendment proposes for you. Ah,the-the changes that are being proposed in
terms of the specific approval criteria would be a one,that it protects historic buildings
and that there'll be a rehab plan if there's an existing historic building. That it not be
allowed if it's in a zone that is historic district overlay with at least three commercial
storefront characteristics. And then also that the proposed dwelling is not significantly
alter the overall commercial character of that subject zone. So making sure that it fits in-
in a commercial context and not overtake it. The final change is to treat assisted group
living uses more similarly to multifamily uses. So these are things like nursing homes or
assisted group living facilities. Ah, and treating them more similarly to multifamily or
residential uses would allow them in more zones. It would simplify review processes in
the case of the low density multifamily zone. And then it would also stop allowing them
in the intensive commercial zone,which is more of a semi industrial zone that we don't
typically allow household living uses in. And so just treating those more similarly to our
residential uses. So with regards to the impacts of the first change,with regards to
allowing duplex and to attach single-family units in lower-density residential zones, I
kinda talked about our current regulations,but the 2022 affordable housing action plan
did recommend expanding where these are allowed from just corner lots, specifically in
lower density zones. In terms of anticipated impacts, staff believes that the primary
impacts for this are going to affect greenfield sites where you have sites on the edge of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 4
the community primarily because those are the areas where it's easiest to plat lots that
meet the standards for duplex and attached single-family uses. But it might have some
impacts on existing parcels as well,where an existing parcel might be able to
accommodate new duplex uses. Uh, and I talked primarily about duplex uses in terms of
impacts because for attached single-family,that would require lots to be resubdivided,
which would come before council for subsequent approvals as well through the final plat
process,most likely. In terms of the existing parcels that might be affected, staff looked
at the maximum number of lots that could potentially accommodate duplex uses,but we
do anticipate that most would remain the current uses and that changes over time,uh,
would happen through gradual conversion and or redevelopment. What we would expect
is something similar to what we've seen in the neighborhood stabilization zones,which is
the RNS-12 zone. These already allow mid blocks duplexes and they are close to the
University campus. Since 1992,we've seen approximately five single-family homes that
have been demoed to build a duplex. That's about 1% of current parcels in that zone. Uh,
and over that time,we've also seen more units convert from duplexes single-family than
from single-family to duplex. So we'd expect gradual conversion over time. It wouldn't be
something where all of a sudden, all of these are instance duplex uses. But in terms of the
number of parcels that could be effected,uh,up to a maximum of about 2,900 lots could
accommodate duplex uses are in that they are the approximate lot size that could
accommodate them. About 170 of them are in the University impact area,which is that
area that's closest to the University campus. And then up to an another additional 2,200
lots could potentially accommodate duplex uses with lot sizes that are proposed in a
subsequent amendment that I'll talk about later. But approximately 90 of those are located
in the University impact area. It's also a challenging situation where historically we have
allowed duplex uses and many of these zones. But that amount has decreased, especially
after we adopted standards that require duplexes to be on comer lots. So we're really
looking at trying to encourage alternative housing types that are more affordable, such as
duplexes, compared to detached single-family uses.Now,where those lots are located?
Again,you'll see the map before you that shows lots that might allow duplex uses that are
currently single-family. Green lots are those that currently allow duplexes.You can see
that they're scattered throughout the city. There especially- I mean,they're located on
corner lots. So especially where you see lots of dense street networks,there tend to be
more of those. Yellow areas are areas that would allow duplexes if mid block duplexes
were allowed. Generally,you'll see that these are outside of the city core,but it's a lot of-
of these zones. But a lot of the lots in the city core are actually too small by just allowing
mid block duplexes. The orange areas are those that would allow mid block-would allow
duplexes if mid block duplexes were allowed and the duplex lot sizes were reduced as
proposed in a subsequent amendment. You'll see a lot of those are located in older
portions of the cities. You'll see some in the North side, the Morningside, Twain,
Longfellow and Oak Woods areas. And then the gray areas are where they're not allowed
because they're too small or because it's a zone that doesn't allow them. So again,whether
a duplex- duplex use is established, is guided by a number of factors. We're in a
challenging market environment for that with high interest rates and high construction
costs. There are also other factors that aren't considered in this map,which includes
things like the current use,property values, covenants, owner desires for their lots of
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 5
those things. So there's a number of factors that go into whether or not a lot might
become a duplex use. The second proposed amendment is allowing town home-style
multifamily uses and higher density single-family zones. So as I noted,up to six attached
single-family uses are allowed in these zones. But that is,they must be on independent
lots. This would allow it on a common lot,which has the same look from the streets and
can be more affordable as well since they can share things like water service. So it can
reduce the cost for that-that housing type. In terms of anticipated impacts,we don't
expect it to have a large impact on the number of units that's produced because it is
similar to a use that's already allowed within this zone. However, it does add flexibility
for housing types that are allowed, and also in the arrangement of lots within that zoning
district. And so as an example of an attached single-family home versus a multi-family
town home, from the street,they look almost identical. If I didn't have these labels on the
images below. The one on the left is attached single-family. The one on the right is town
home-style multifamily. The one on the left is currently allowed,the one on the right is
not. So this would allow both of these building types. The next change would be to
streamline residential uses in commercial zones. So again, second story residential in the
CC-2 zone currently requires a special exception, so that's an additional process,time and
resources that's required for that use. And multifamily uses are currently not allowed on
the ground floor in almost all commercial zones. Other than in some very specific
circumstances in central business zones. So the proposed amendment would change that a
little bit. It would simplify the process to allow mixed-use buildings with residential
above and commercial below in important commercial centers since a lot of those are
zones CC-2. As an example of that,we call that a vertically mixed-use building. The
building on the right has an example of commercial on the bottom floor,residential
above. That's one thing that would be simplified. The second would be to allow the board
of adjustment to approve multi-family buildings and most commercial zones by special
exception. Again, it must meet those specific and general approval criteria which would
help maintain the commercial character of these zones and also protect historic buildings
within these zones. The reason that we're proposing this is because it facilitates
horizontally mixed use development. That is a case where you have a single lot,where
you might have a commercial building on one side of that lot and a residential building
on the other side. That's something that's currently not allowed under our zoning code.
You would need different lots,you'd need different zoning districts for those, or you
would need an OPD for it. So this would allow,you could imagine a situation where you
have a large lot,big-box commercial store that has a large parking lot. And without
resubdividing, it could potentially be approved for multifamily uses and underutilized
parking areas. So that's the horizontally mixed-use aspect of it. In terms of areas that are
affected by that. Areas in blue are those that allow multifamily uses by right currently. So
they're multifamily zones,primarily. Areas in green are those that allow second story
multi-family uses as long as certain standards are met. The proposed amendment would
allow fust story commercial uses by special exception. The areas in yellow currently
require board of adjustment approval or a special exception to allow seconds story
residential uses with the proposed amendment that would be allowed as long as certain
standards are met, so it'd be administrative approval. And then finally,the areas in orange
are tied to the previous amendment that I discussed. So those are areas that would allow
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 6
town home-style multifamily in addition to single-family town homes. And those are the
RS-12 zones. The final change within this category would be to treat assisted group
living uses more similarly to multifamily uses. So they are currently not treated as
household living uses, and so they are allowed in fewer residential zoning districts. It is
generally a best practice to treat assisted living facilities like similarly sized household
living uses. So that's really what led to this proposed amendment. What it would do is
simplify the process to allow assisted living in lower density multifamily zones, and
allow assisted living in zones that currently allow multifamily,which is primarily
commercial zones. Again, it would also no longer allow it in the intensive commercial or
semi industrial zone. In terms of areas affected,the green areas are those that allow
assisted group living uses if certain standards are met. Yellow areas allow them with
board of adjustment approval with the proposed amendments,they'd be allowed
administratively if certain standards are met,. And then the orange areas are those that do
not allow them currently,but would allow them under the proposed amendment and the
red areas currently allow these but would no longer allow them. Those are the CI-1
zones. The second set of changes is- is looking at design standards and there are three
changes proposed as part of this. The fust would be to eliminate two multifamily site
development standards to help provide flexibility and also reduce cost for construction.
Those two standards are specifically-they're currently multifam-most multifamily group
living uses are not built of masonry or stucco,most have a two-foot base of masonry,
stucco or dress concrete. This would eliminate that requirement. And then in addition, it
would eliminate the requirement that facade materials,uh,where there's a change in the
wall material around a corner, it has to be wrapped three feet around the comer. This
would eliminate that requirement. The second proposed change would be to adjust
standards to allow duplexes in-up to two attached single-family uses and mid block
locations. Uh, currently,the way that our design standards are structured, it requires that
carriages and entrances for duplexes be located on different streets. If we're allowing mid
block duplexes, obviously that,uh,would need to be changed. Um,but it does have,uh, a
great point of trying to limit the impacts of garages. So we do propose a couple of
additional standards as well to help reduce the impact of garages on a streetscape in these
low density residential zones. So it would limit garages to 60 percent of the facade,uh,
and it would limit it to 20 feet per street. Uh, that is, you can have two single wide
garages or one double wide garage,uh,per street. If you're on- I'll show you some
examples as we get into it too. I've got some images for you. Um,but it would also allow
more if it was set back 15 feet to prevent it from dominating the streets. So that's similar
to foreign-based zones. In addition,we will-we will require that they utilize rear allies if
they are existing. The third change is to simplify a waiver for town home-style
multifamily, specifically as it relates to a parking setback required in the zone. That's a
very specific change and I'll discuss that in more detail when I have a diagram up because
it's hard to discuss without that diagram. So first, we eliminate the two multifamily site
development standards. Uh,this was something that was brought up in the 2016
affordable housing action plan that recommended amending these standards,uh, in terms
of anticipated impacts. Uh,we really are looking at trying to retain standards that more
directly address visual interest. So sta-most standards would still be in effect, including
things like building entrances and scale,balconies and exterior stairways, other building
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 7
materials standards,mechanical equipment standards, and architectural style standards
and the pla- central planning district, it would just eliminate those two standards that I
discussed previously,that-that two-foot masonry base and the three-foot wrap around
corners. Uh,the goal is really to reduce the cost of construction,uh, and increase
flexibility without really impacting that visual interest. So as an example of a- of a
building that wouldn't be allowed currently,this image on the left,when it be allowed,
doesn't have a durable place. Um, so it would allow buildings like this to exist when they
currently couldn't exist under our zoning code. The second change would be to,uh,uh,
adjust the design standards for duplexes and attached single-family and low density
residential zones. So again, currently the-the entrances and garages have to face different
streets. But this really facilitates that proposed a-Amendment A. So I already discussed
how this helps,uh, avoid garages that dominates streetscapes. All other design standards
would continue to apply. And we would really expect the outcomes to be similar to what
you see with an OPD. So many of these,uh, sample images that I have on here are from
our existing code-building code or zoning code, excuse me, as ways that would prevent,
ah, it from dominating a streetscape. And I felt laser pointer that I wanted to make sure I
got up. So in terms of what that might look like in practice,this upper left is the only one
that's currently allowed where you have garages facing different streets,that would still
be allowed under the proposed zoning code but they would be restricted to 20 feet unless
they're setback more than 15 feet. To the upper right,you'll see an example of a stacked
duplex where they can share a double wide garage,uh,but they would be restricted to 20
feet if it wasn't setback 15 feet from the street. The lower left, it would be required to
utilize an alley if an alley was present and we would not restrict the amount of garage
space that would be facing an alley. It's only those facing streets. So it could be more than
20 feet in this image on the lower right. Uh, in this case,the garages are set back 15 feet,
so you could have two double wide garages where they want to dominate the streetscape.
Um,but it would still be restricted by that 60 percent of the facade could only be garages.
So a number of different standards. It still allows a lot of flexibility, but it would allow
those mid block locations. The next change is- is regarding the parking setback for town
home-style,multi-family. Uh, this is really paired with standards that are trying to
regulate tunneled style multifamily more similarly to attached single-family uses, since
they look but almost identical and currently parking for town homes,multifamily has to
be set back 15 feet of building depth from the street. So for the most part, that's not a
problem. Uh, and I can show you what this diagram. So this black here is the building.
You have the front facing a front street to the north. To the south you have a rear loaded,
uh,rear loaded garages with driveways, and then you have an alley. Uh,the 15th foot
setback,you can see is this orange line here from the front. The goal is to make sure that
you don't have parking in front of the building. But in a case like this,where you have six
attached single-family units,uh, it also creates a building depth line on the west side. So
it wouldn't allow parking within that 15 feet of building depth,which is something that
wouldn't be required for attached single-family. What we're proposing is to-that-that can
be waived currently by minor modification,requires additional process, additional time.
What we're proposing is that that be allowed to be waived just with an administrative
approval for specifically town home style multifamily on- on side streets. So again, it's a
very specific example of ways that we're trying to regulate uses more similarly. Uh,but
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 8
what it does is simplify the process. So it does maintain,uh,the intent of the current
regulation,which is not allowing that reduction on the front street. The next set of
changes is tied to providing,uh, additional flexibility to enhance the supply of housing.
Uh,this started with three proposed amendments, one of which is amendments related to
accessory dwelling units. Uh,the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended
deferral to facilitate neighborhood consult- consultation regarding that specific item so
that's going to be removed from what will be,uh,brought before you,uh,when this is
considered. But the other two changes are- are reductions in lot sizes and widths for
detached and attached single-family and duplex uses in some zones, specific zones that
would be impacted would be RS-5 zones,um, for both single-family, detached and
duplex uses. In the RS-8 zone, it would reduce it for duplex uses and attached single-
family uses. In the RNS-12 zone, it would only affect,uh, single-family detached uses
with rear access. And then in the RM-12 and RM-20 zone, it's only tied to a lot width. So
it's just bringing those standards more into line with other single-family standards. The
other is tied to increase in the bedroom limit for missing middle housing outside of the
University impact area. So currently there are a bedroom caps on multifamily and duplex
and single-family attached units. This is proposing for- for units outside of the University
impact area,that the number of bedrooms in that bedroom cap be increased by one. So
for multifamily, it would increase from three to four. For duplex and single-family
attached, it would be increased from from four to five. The goal is really to accommodate
a wider variety of housing types and family types within those because currently single-
family detached is the primary housing type that's allowed for those large families. So
with reduct-uh,with regards to lot size reductions,uh,this really came about because a
lot of our 19-uh,pre-1962 lots are currently non-conforming. Uh, it is also a best practice
to reduce minimum lot sizes that can perpetuate patterns of economic and demographic
segregation. Uh, and it's best practice to-to have as much of the lots within your city
comply with the zoning code. So in terms of the anticipated impacts of reducing lot sizes,
uh, it would bring many lo-non-conforming lots to compliance, er, approximately 1,600
lots to be specific that are detached, single-family in the RS-5 and RNS-12 zone, it's
about 85% of non-conforming lots within those zones. Uh, it would still leave about 300
lots that remain non-conforming,but it also provides more flexibility to the arrangement
of lots and new subdivisions and also allows, er,the incorporation of smaller lots,which
can also,uh,reduce,uh,the land cost of those units. So as an example of that, assuming
that land is five dollars a square foot and it's likely higher than that,uh,that could reduce
the price of land for a new single-family homes in RS-5 by approximately $10,000. And
in terms of conforming lots,uh,the image on the screen is an example of some units,uh,
in the Morningside neighborhood that are zoned RS-5. The currently nonconforming,
they have a 50-foot lot width. Uh,there are 7,000-square-foot lots. Uh, in and RS-5 zone,
that would not be allowed currently if you were building a new RS-5 zone. So it'd be
allowing those small,uh, lot,uh,buildings within RS-5 zones. And in addition, it would
allow duplexes on smaller lots. Uh, I did discuss that previously under la, so I'm not
gonna repeat myself there. But in terms of those single-family detached lots that become
nonconforming or that become conforming,uh,the green areas are those that are
conforming to see what expect that's most of the city. But you do see in some older areas
such as Morningside, Twain,Pahn Grove, Manville Heights,the South District,you see a
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 9
number of nonconforming lots in yellow. Those are lots that would become conforming
under the proposed change. You'll also notice if you red lots that are scattered through the
oldest areas of town, including Towncrest and the North side,those would remain non-
conforming,but it is a pretty substantial,uh,reduction in the number of nonconforming
lots. And the other change,uh,regarding bedroom limits. Uh, again,they're currently our
caps for duplexes attached single-family,multi-family uses,uh,which does limit where
large households can- can live. Uh, specifically it forces them to live in single-family
housing or it forces them to-to cram together since single-family housing,uh, is the only
housing type that does not have a- a bedroom limit. So the 2022 affordable housing
action plan did recommend that we look at the standards specifically outside of the
University impact area,which is,uh,within that area bounded in red. So again,that area
closest to the University it'd be outside of that and it would increase the number of
bedrooms allowed by one for a multifamily duplex and attached single-family uses. But it
would retain that bedroom cap for the University impact area,which is largely,uh,where
the reason that the bedroom cap,uh,was originated within that area. The next set of
standards are tied to regulatory incentives for affordable housing. And the rest of the
standards that I've spoken about so far are specifically related to choice, supply, and
flexibility in addition to the cost of housing. This one is specifically related to creating
regulated affordable housing. That means that there'll be income restricted and rent and
sales price restricted as well, um, and they would need to meet income and rent levels
that are guided by current practice,uh,within the city for affordable housing units. Uh,
the two changes that we- or the-the regulatory incentives that we would propose would
be creating a density bonus for affordable housing units in conventionable- conventional
zoning districts. So what we're proposing is a 20% density bonus,where 20% of units are
affordable for 20 years. Uh, it would also have some additional regulatory flexibility,um,
specifically related to setbacks and height if that was needed to make up affordable
housing project work,um, otherwise that wouldn't be allowed. Uh,the other change
would be to eliminate minimum parking requirements for affordable housing units. Uh,
and those affordable housing units would have to be affordable,uh, for 20 years, at least.
Um, so,uh,both of these provide indirect subsidies for affordable housing units. The
minimum parking requirement would not affect any market rate units that are included in
affordable housing developments. So to give you an idea of what that looks like,um, an
example of an affordable housing project or- or a regular housing project in an RS-5
zone,the low-density single-family residential zone. Let's say you have a 20 acres zone.
Uh, it would allow five dwelling units per acre. So that would allow approximately 70
homes with room for,uh, streets,with rooms for stormwater management. All of those
would be market rate. If the 20% density bonus was applied, it would allow
approximately 84 homes within that of which 17 would need to be affordable. And really
what it does is provide that voluntary incentive,uh,to provide affordable units that are
regulated by the city. Uh, as a multi-family example, let's say there's a 33,000-square-foot
lot that would currently allow 12 units at an RM-12 zone, all of which would be market
rate. Uh, if they took advantage of a density bonus, it would allow an additional three
units that must be affordable. So it'd be 15 units on that 33,000-square-foot lot. Uh, in
terms of the way that this would operate is it would operate similar to what is currently
included in our form-based zones. So it'd be administered during our typical reviews with
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 10
the goal of having these additional units help offset the cost of affordable housing. And
this is one of the more common affordable housing incentives that you see in other
communities. For the minimum parking requirements,uh,we do currently have this
standard in Riverfront Crossings and form-based zones. So this would just expand it to
conventional zones as well. Um, and we have had past plans that have suggested waiving
parking requirements as well for all affordable housing units. Uh, as an example,uh, let's
go back to that 20-acre RS-5 development where there are 70 homes that would require a
minimum of 140 parking spaces. Uh,with the affordable housing incentive with 84
homes,that would require 134 parking spaces. For the multifamily development,the 12
units would require 24 parking spaces under our conventional development regulations.
With the affordable housing incentive, I would allow 15 units with 24 spaces. So again,
the only units that don't have a parking-minimum parking standard are those affordable
units. Uh, and that also helps indirectly offset the cost of providing that affordable
housing. And we also see this one is also supporting many of the city's efforts that are
trying to encourage alternative modes of transportation, including things like our two-
year free fare,uh,just trying to get people out of cars and into alternative,uh,vehicles.
The final set of standards are related to addressing for housing issues, and we have two
proposed amendments for this. One is creating a request,uh, a process to request
reasonable accommodations. The second is to reclassify community service,long-term
housing as residential use. So with regards to that first one,the city is obligated under
federal law to provide accommodations for persons with disabilities. But we currently
don't have a clear process for doing that,um, and it is best practice to provide that as an
administrative relief. So really what we would propose is creating a new process by
which they may apply, it'd be a simple comprehensive process to evaluate all reasonable
accommodations requests, and would use the same approval criteria. They would also
reduce the need to call attention to the disability of a person making your request. So in
some cases,uh,under our current code, for example,wheelchair ramp, if you want to put
that on the front of your house and you can't meet setback requirements, it may require
minor modification which requires notify-notifying adjacent property owners,uh,
essentially of your disability. So this would provide a more discrete process,confidential
process that would apply in all cases. The second change is reclassifying community
service long-term housing use,which currently includes housing with supportive services
for persons with disabilities, and it has to be owned by a non-profit or public agency. Uh,
generally, it's best practice to regulate housing for persons with disabilities like similarly
sized household living uses. Um, in terms of the anticipated impacts, it would generally
simplify the process by which,uh,these uses would be allowed,but it would also
eliminate the way in which these are treated differently,uh, such as increased density and
decreased parking,which is currently allowed for these uses,uh,but it does require less
administrative burden. The proposed amendment also allows accessory supportive
services that serve residents of the building,uh,within residential zones more generally
so would be like any other amenity provided to residents of a housing complex,whether
you have a pool,whether you have a gym,but the minute it starts serving outside folks
then it would be treated as a commercial use. Um,but it is specifying that supportive
services are an accessory used to residential uses. Uh, in this case, it would create two
properties,uh,that are-that would become non-conforming. Um,those are both owned
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 11
by Shelter House and they would become legal nonconforming uses, so they would be
able to continue as they are,but they wouldn't be able to expand. We have discussed this
with Shelter House leadership and they're not as concerned about that as long as they can
continue as they are, and it would allow these uses more widely in more contexts. So
allow them in a more neighborhood context as well. Um, so in this case,you know, I- I've
said that trying to reduce non-conformities is an important goal of- of the zoning code, in
this cases,we- in this case, we do believe that addressing this fair housing issue
outweighs that need. In terms of amendments removed,uh, I did just want to touch
briefly on accessory dwelling units and what we've proposed. That'll come before you in
the future like I noted. Generally we view ADUs as a great way to increase housing
supply without substantially impacting the appearance of the neighborhood. And all of
the changes that we're recommending are based on the Johnson County's livable-Livable
Communities Housing Action Committee,which is part of their taskforce on addressing
affordable, accessible housing. And it's also based largely on the AARP model ordinance
that they provide because they see that as a great way to allow people to age in their
house. So the proposed changes include things like allowing ADUs in any zone that
allows household living uses on any lot with up to two dwellings,removing the
requirement that one unit be owner-occupied,moving limits on the number of bedrooms
and residence, increasing the allowable size of the units,removing the requirement for an
additional parking space and simplifying design requirements. Um, so really what we're
trying to do is remove those barriers that we've seen. And that was also proposed as part
of the 2022 affordable housing action plan,um, especially as a large portion of the
households in Iowa City are single person households and we expect that number to
continue increasing. Uh, it will affect a number of parcels. It could-there are 13,000 that
are currently eligible for these uses. We've seen 52 ADUs in the last 30 years or so of
which about a third were in the peninsula neighborhood. Uh,those would continue to be
eligible for ADUs under the proposed amendments,but would allow up to an additional
1,400 new units potentially by expanding the zones and uses to which they're allowed to
be accessory. And then similarly to duplex it, it would expand the number of units
allowed by about 3,100 by removing the owner occupancy requirement.Now many of
those are in the University impact areas, so that's something to keep in mind,but we do
expect it to be like duplexes where it would be a gradual development of these uses. Uh,
we also see this as supporting the city sustainability goals by increasing the supply of
housing, especially in those existing neighborhoods that have good access to amenities.
Teague: I do see Councilor Dunn hand raised.
Dunn: Yeah. Can you guys hear me?
Teague: Yes.
Dunn: Yes. Uh, so just a quick clarification,um, on the existing situation part of this ta- of this
slide. Um, I'm looking at your stat for 36% of households in Iowa City are- are single
person. Can you talk to me more about how household is defined in this context?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 12
Lehmann: Yeah. Household is defined as any person living within a dwelling unit. So a dwelling
unit is an independent group of rooms intended for household. I mean,they're kind of
alternate changes. So if you have a duplex unit,that would be- could accommodate two
households. If you had an extended family and they all lived within one dwelling unit,
that would be a single household. Could be a family household if you have with kids, if
you have a brother with- living with you that's a household, if you have roommates living
with you,that's a household.
Dunn: So the roommates are- so like if you have roommates,they're all considered a household
whether or not they're sharing all the space or a specific space, it's the- it's the total unit,
the collective,right?
Lehmann: Uh, for- for the purpose of that figure that's derived from census standards. The
zoning code standards might be a little different.
Dunn: Okay. Thank you.
Lehmann: But you'll see this in the future,uh, once P&Z discusses it in October 4th, is what
we're anticipating. Uh, it does affect a number of units. The green areas are those that
currently allow ADUs if they're owner-occupied,under the proposed amendment it will
allow them if they're renter occupied. The yellow areas are new zones that would allow
ADUs or their duplexes that would allow ADUs where they were not currently allow- or
were not previously allowed. So in terms of the way that we came up with many of these
recommendations,uh,we really based a lot of this on national best practices,which
looked at other jurisdictions to identify what was working and what wasn't. Uh, and we
really focused, especially on the American Planning Association's equity and zoning
policy guide. That includes a number of best practices like allowing a broader range of
building forms, lot sizes and lot widths,reducing minimum lot sizes, allowing ADUs to
start a public hearing, treated assisted group living, and also supportive services for
persons with disabilities like residential uses,then also allowing administrative approval
of reasonable accommodations. But we also looked at things like the National
Association of Counties,which provides specialized recommendations based on the
characteristics of your county. So for Johnson County,we are a high-growth,high-cost
county for which they recommend making it easier to build small, moderately priced
houses,making the development process simpler and shorter, and expanding vouchers or
income supports for low-income renters. Uh,that includes things like affordable housing
support. And then also for the,uh,AARP as it relates to accessory dwelling units,uh,
really,they do identify things that-that have a very chilling effect on the development of
accessory dwelling units, including things like owner occupancy requirements,parking
requirements, and then some other things that-that-that don't apply to Iowa City's zoning
code. And we also made sure that they were consistent with the comprehensive plans. So
really a lot of these changes that we're bringing before you are changes that can be made
with the current comprehensive plan that the city has. So within the vision statements,uh,
one of our vision goals is creating attractive and affordable housing for all people,
housing that as the foundation of healthy, safe, and diverse neighborhoods throughout our
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 13
city,uh, in addition to a number of relevant strategies and goals such as ensuring a mix of
housing types, encouraging developments on smaller lots, etc., supporting infill
development and small lot development. And we also made sure that we were consistent
with the future land use map,which is included within the comprehensive plan. So the
future land use map shows what different land uses might be appropriate in different
areas. Uh,the lowest density zone outside of the rural residential areas allow dwelling
units of up- or allow density of up to eight dwelling units per acre so we took that into
account as we were developing our proposals, and it also knows that they should account
for a variety of housing types. We also tied this to the-the many planning processes that
have happened over the past several years that Anne talked about at the beginning of this.
We've also gotten,uh, a lot of public outreach as part of this, so including a number of
pieces of correspondence and- and individuals who testified to the commission in support
and against the proposed amendments. All of the written correspondence in the final
commission meeting minutes will be included in your council packet. And the Planning
and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of the proposed amendments,with the
exception of those related to accessory dwelling units as discussed by Anne previously.
In terms of next steps,um,we would anticipate setting a public hearing on September 5th
with the goal of a public hearing being held on September- September 19. That would
also be the fust consideration, so the second and third considerations would be held in
October under our proposed timeline. So with that, I know that it's a lot of information,
I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Uh,but that concludes my presentation.
So thank you.
Teague: Well,thank you. That's a lot of, uh, great information that you presented. Council is our
opportunity to ask questions seeking clarification. I would remind us that we are-um,we
want to hold any positions on this matter until we have closed the public hearing.
Dunn: Is it okay if I give a quick comment?
Teague: Absolutely.
Dunn: Awesome. Thank you,Mayor. I- I first of all,just wanna thank you for- for an excellent
presentation this-this made a very technical,uh,proposal make a lot more sense in- in
my mind. And- and I hope that more people in the community will take the time to both
listen to this recording and or listened to the recording from the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Uh,my only comment is that I would love to follow up with you for a
further discussion about the ADU proposal. Um, otherwise,you know,just very
appreciative of your time and the rest of staffs time and getting this put before us. Thank
you.
Bergus: I have a couple of very technical questions,maybe if. Ah,thank you. Kirk uh,yeah.
Excellent job. Anne and Kirk and all of your staff for pulling this together for us. Um,
okay. So the and I try to make notes in order of- of the presentation and probably should
have just interrupted you. So on the,uh,what-what is proposed to be allowed for
multifamily that is currently only single-family attached,right? Could you have one
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 14
building that is then still in a horizontal condominium regime. So it could be owned
separately,but oriented vertically. Um, so you could still have separated ownership but
on common lot so that for development purposes, it could be, I think, easier to develop
that multi-unit building.
Lehmann: Yeah. That-that's typically what we see for attached.
Bergus: Okay.
Lehmann: Town home-style multifamily. Um,the thing that wouldn't be allowed as you couldn't
stack town homes. So the-the way that we wrote the code is you couldn't have,you
know, a town home with a unit on top and then a town home with a unit on top,that will
not be allowed.
Bergus: Okay. Got it. So for this-
Lehmann: It got to be side-by-side,but it could be a condominium regime.
Bergus: Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Um, and then for the now,you answered that question about
the smaller lot sizes and what that would mean for like the RS5 then becomes six units,
right? If it was five units per acre. And you have the 20%,uh, affordability incentive,
sorry, 20% density bonus as an affordability incentive,that would-that's what that
translates to,right? I mean,you gave examples with multiple lots,but just in my brain
trying to think one- one acre. Okay. Um,how did you arrive at the 20%?Um, again still
for the density bonus and the affordable housing incentive,um,how did you arrive at the
20% density bonus and the 20 years duration?
Lehmann: Sure. So the 20 years is based on-partially on current practice for a lot of our
programs at the City, a lot of them use that 20-year mark. And that's also if you're doing a
vehicle that's recorded with the deed,uh,they expire after 21 years unless they're
removed or renewed. Uh, so that also factors into it. In terms of the 20%,um, it's, you
know, it's more art than science, I suppose I would say. Um, it seems consistent with
what some other communities have done. Some do higher, a lot of them actually do
mandatory affordable housing,which is something we can't do under Iowa law. Um,but
it's on the higher end of what is standard in- in other similar situations. I had also seems
like it's low enough where it would maintain compatibility with adjacent uses as well. So,
like I said,more-more or more art than science.
Bergus: That makes sense. In the example of the long term supported housing you gave the
example of those two Shelter House projects. Um,you-the proposed change would
expand where they can be built,but it said except,uh, CIl?
Lehmann: Yes.
Bergus: Okay. So what-what did you mean by that?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 15
Lehmann: So what I mean by that is it's similar to assisted group living where currently this use
is allowed in the CII zone,we typically don't see that as a- a zone that's appropriate for
household living uses.
Bergus: Sure.
Lehmann: And so it seems like we should treat housing for persons with disabilities similarly.
Bergus: Okay. Great. So that would become a not,uh, allowed use and that's all.
Lehmann: Correct.
Bergus: Got it. Okay. Those are all my questions actually.
Harmsen: Also wanted to say thank you to everyone. This is,uh, as I was talking to somebody
before the meeting,this is actually one of the reasons,um, I was excited to run for
council is to take a look at some of these long-term zoning issues that have created
inequalities over the decades. So it's- it's really cool to be able to be digging really into
this now. And so thank you for all that hard work. And thank you to the planning and
zoning commission for doing the fust pass through this,um, and collecting some of that
input. I think I had a similar question. You may have kind of answered it that Councilor
Bergus has had about the 20 years. Is that something that-that you had mentioned? I
didn't catch the last part of your answer. The fust part was because we've kinda done it
that way in the past. But was there something in the second part of your answer that
would prohibit us from taking a closer look at that when it comes back before the
council?
Lehmann: You-you could look at that. Um,with recorded-with something that's recorded with
the deed. It expires after 21 years and it has to be renewed. So it is generally simpler
process to do a 20-year requirement with something like that.
Harmsen: Can that be worked around?
Lehmann: It could be.
Harmsen: Thank you.
Teague: Only because you ended on the 20-year of portability period. Um, I- I guess it's a bigger
question. So what happens,um, at the end of 20 years as we've been doing in the
Riverfront Crossing area for affordable units,what is our plan? If we- if for the- for those
units that will go regular market rent,what is our plan at that point?Because they're
gonna be gone. I mean,that's-that's a real fear that these will be gone. So what is the plan
for perpetuity,um, I guess, in a way?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 16
Lehmann: Sure. So I can't give you an exact answer to that. Um,what I can tell you is that,you
know, focusing on maintaining affordability is an important part of the affordable
housing puzzle. I believe that I think it was Planning and Zoning that asked me about in
perpetuity, affordable housing. Uh,my understanding is that,uh,that is something that
really puts a chilling effect on using these. So these incentives are just that voluntary
incentives. You want to make sure that the cost to the-to the developer is something that
is,provides enough return on investment that they will utilize the incentives. Um, as far
as making sure that those voluntary units remain affordable. Uh,that would be something
that we'd have to look at it that time. And-Anne can [OVERLAPPING]
Russett: I'm sorry. I just wanted to add something to that,um,Kirk is right. We want incentives
that anyone would use voluntary-voluntarily, even for-profit developers. But we
anticipate that more commonly,these incentives will be used by non-profit housing
developers that are already building affordable housing, and it would be helpful to their
projects financially. Um, and they would get a bonus. And those are projects that would-
that as non-profit housing developers would be maintained as affordable units in
perpetuity.
Alter: Do we have,um, for either one of you?But just going along with this thread,um, do we
have any buildings where they're aging out of that agreement?Like to the mayor's point,
about 20 years and then what happens?Do we have any current examples or- or near
historic-near historical examples of what has happened when 20 years is, er, aged
Lehmann: Yeah, I- I don't have any current examples. I know that community development staff
maintains a list of that and tracks what-where units are in their affordability cycle. I
know that often,uh,those units apply for additional affordable housing funds,but that is
something that happens frequently.
Alter: Yeah, it was just [OVERLAPPING].
Lehmann: So it really depends on the circumstances and I don't have any current examples now.
Alter: I mean, it would just- it would be interesting to me to think of tracking those who have
been perhaps in place for,you know, long-term renters for the affordable housing and
what that shift over to it becoming market rate might mean for them. Um,but then also,
um,you'll have to come back to me, I lost it. So at any rate,um, I just think it would be
an interesting,well,not just interesting, actually vitally important for these community
members, for us to,kind of,have an awareness of where they might go. Um, and as you
say,there might be applications for,you know, funding to continue to maintain them,
their affordability,but that's all contingent on whether,you know,that landlord or that
property owner wants to go that distance. Right? So,yeah, anyway, I'm just, kind of,
musing out loud.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 17
Teague: Is there any way,um, along the line of if someone is currently renting and that,you
know, is the 20th year,where is it going to lapse, Is there any way to figure out how that
household could remain there for an additional period of time with those affordable rates?
Lehmann: Well,you would- I imagine that would be done through a legal means. I can't- I'm not
sure how that would work.
Teague:Well, I'm referring to if we can alter- [OVERLAPPING]
Lehmann: Stay there if there have been there.
Teague: Yeah. I mean,because Councilor Shawn just asked if- if we can,you know, change that
20-year language a little bit. And so I was just wondering if there is a way to consider at
the 20th year when someone is actually living there,you know,where they can remain
there with those affordable rates until they move at some point in time. But you [NOISE]
don't have to answer that now. Just something I'm thinking about out loud. Um,the other
question that I have,um, is related to,um,with the Shelter House example that you gave.
Can you speak to why,um,you always suggest or wanted to be with non-profit or
governmental,uh, ownership. And the reason- as far as-you said it was going to be for
non-profit?
Lehmann:No, so our current zoning code regulates housing for persons with disabilities owned
by a public or private non-profit with supportive services as a long-term housing
community service use, or community service, long-term housing use. So those-that was
adopted, I think in 2016 maybe. Um, I'm not sure why that,uh, specific definition was
reached.
Teague: So then-
Lehmann: Yeah, and- and what we would be doing is eliminating that use category.
Teague: Okay.
Lehmann: As a distinct use category.
Teague: Okay. And so,um, and whatever you're replacing it with because there's a lot of
information, I'll try to track it all. But is there any thing that will have,the requirement
that has a not-for-profit or governmental?
Lehmann:No, so it would be- it would be considered like any other residential use based on the
building it's in.
Teague: Got it.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 18
Lehmann: So if it's like the two Shelter House examples would be considered multifamily. You
could also imagine a situation where you have,uh, a couple of single-family homes built
in a small neighborhood,that it provides uh, a similar set of services to residents within
that neighborhood.
Teague: Okay.
Lehmann: And that would be a similar situation,but those would be considered single-family. So
it really depends on the zoning code designation. That's residential household living.
Teague; So the change would allow for,um,private- for profit, um,housing developers to
actually-
Lehmann: Yeah, and- and they could do it currently,but the supportive services would-they
couldn't provide supportive services essentially,they could provide housing,just not
those services in the same way, if that makes sense. So it's, kind of, an a- a special
category that was created as part of the a fused projects. Um,the Shelter House-housing
fust project and that was really what the use was created for. And this would just be
saying supportive services can actually be accessory to any residential use. And this is
just a residential use. It's not a special category of use.
Teague: Okay. And only because I want to make sure that I understand this correctly. So the-the
language of someone who's providing supportive services,they can provide this no
matter if they're for profit, not-for-profit moving forward?
Lehmann: Yes.
Teague: Thank you.
Thomas: Kirk, do we- do we have any idea in areas where we redevelop,uh,how many existing
housing units have been lost through that redevelopment process.
Lehmann: Are you referring to Riverfront Crossings? [OVERLAPPING]
Thomas: Well, it's gonna be a large area where this would take place,you know,where we see
apartment buildings,whatever-whatever existing buildings exist on the parcel are
demolished. Do we keep a- a record of how many housing units have been lost through
redevelopment?
Lehmann: I don't believe so.
Thomas: I mean,the reason I ask is to- I would think typically those houses or those units are
affordable of at least that's often the case. We see redevelopment areas where land values
are relatively lower and so the housing may be more affordable. I mean, it's- it's been a
subject that's been coming up on some of our projects where there is this sense that we're-
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 19
we're building new,we're building more supply and at the same time losing affordable
housing as a result of the process.
Goers: If I may offer this cometary, one of the reasons we feel we are legally justified in
requiring affordable housing or a fee in lieu in the Riverfront Crossing areas, it's exactly
for the point you raised that oftentimes we're losing affordable housing units.Not
because they're mandated to be affordable,but just because they're older housing stock
and as a result,um, are- are cheaper. So I think the premise of your question is right on
base.
Bergus: And I was just going to add to that from a regulatory standpoint, I think it's- it's really
confusing or almost counter-intuitive. Because when we talk about affordability, I think
how we're thinking about it is like can a person who wants to live there, live there and
afford it,right? In the context of- of development, it's like the,you know,their standards
as to what that will be, can be. That doesn't necessarily mean as people have raised in our
meetings before. Like affordable based on percentage of area median income isn't
necessarily affordable,right?Like that-that and so when we talk about like, how do we
keep rents the same or how could we know if an older home that-that costs less to live in
is replaced by something newer that costs more to live in. I mean, so much of that is- is
information that we don't even have access to,right?Like we don't get leases,we don't-
we have to,you know, collect all of this or USG helps us collect information about what
landlords are actually charging and that kind of thing. So I just think trying to separate
that regulatory,what we can control over,you know that's based on these standards that
we can define,but it's very, like, aggregated and- and not specific to,you know, a
particular family who's in a certain situation,who's in a certain unit, and the individual,
you know agreements between a landowner and a tenant, for example, like because we-
we have we're really restricted and now we can affect the latter.
Lehmann: I would also add that with these proposed amendments were not anticipating wide-
scale redevelopment. You know,we're not looking at creating an new Riverfront
Crossings district that's specifically intended for redevelopment. Really,what we're
trying to do is allow additional units within-within the neighborhood framework that we
have and really try to reduce the cost of construction as they are. So that's what a lot of
these amendments are trying to do. And also in new development to provide flexibility in
the way that we can provide more affordable housing types, additional housing diversity,
and hopefully increase the supply in the process. So that's what I would say.
Alter: One of the things that I was actually struck by, and it's been sort of the framing for these
extensive and thoughtful amendments is that you're trying to address so many different
things,right? It's not simply affordability. It's also about housing stock,which is,you
know, and how do we kinda marry these disparate pieces so that there's more of a
coherent sense. And so it sounds to me, as you were going through everything,um,you
know, I was kinda bearing that in mind. It's not simply one component,but it's how all
these pieces fit together in some ways to-to increase livability ultimately. So I just- I
wanted to say that I thought you're trying to thread a needle because this is a really
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 20
difficult process,but-um, and you have to attend- sorry and you have to attend to
different components of it. How are you dealing with neighborhood,um,you know, sort
of that neighborhood framework, as you say,while creating more housing stock,while
also attending the fact that we are such an expensive place to live?How do we make this
more conducive for developers and affordable for people to live so- and to do it all
through these very technical means?Um, I just appreciate it. Um, I need to digest much
more. Um,but I just wanted to-to say that one of the things that I was very much struck
by was that you were not focused simply on one component,but really looking at here's
the big picture and what this could mean for us decades to come, and how we are going
to grow,um, in a way that can help the community. So thank you.
Bergus: And maybe one more really big-picture question for you and or Anne. Um,we've been
talking about a compre- a comprehensive- comprehensive plan review right, a larger
comprehensive plan review and amendment over the next several years. So how-how
would you see these proposed changes,kind of fitting into that impacting that like what?
Because my sense from how you laid this out was that these are not radical,this is what
we can do now with what we have knowing where we are. Um, like you said,not any big
redevelopment,um,but just can you king of like balance those or talking about that
bigger picture for us.
Lehmann: Anne, do you want to cover that?
Russett: Yeah.
Lehmann: I mean, I can give my opinion as well,but I'll let Anne talk fust.
Russett: Well,yeah, I think you're right. I feel like we are limited in what we can do based on the
current policy direction in- in terms of,you know,what uses can be allowed,where and
how we can be flexible and allowing a diversity of housing types based on our current
adopted plans. And I think when we do look at those plans more comprehensively,that's
something that we're going to have to evaluate as a community to see if- if we need to go
further. If there are more things that we can do to address housing supply,housing
diversity um. And that's going to have to be a community conversation that's held when
we update those plans. So-
Bergus: Thank you.
Russett: But that's definitely gonna be part of that process.
Lehmann: Yeah. A- and not only is this something that we can do now,but this is something
that,you know, a lot of these or some of these changes have been proposed since 2016
and it's really built over time through those previous planning processes that we've had,
including the analysis of impediments to fair housing choice with the Fair Housing
Choice Study 2022 affordable housing action plan. So lots of input as part of the strategic
plan as well,the cou- council strategic plan. So we see this as a continuation of those
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 21
within our existing comprehensive planning framework. Additional-there's probably
additional things that we can do for affordable housing in the future with as we look at
the comprehensive plan but like Anne said, it's- it's something that we'll come together as
a community to discuss at that time.
Teague: Great. Don't look like there are any more questions. Thanks to both of you.
Lehmann: Thank you.
2. Clarification of Agenda Items
Teague: All right. We're going to move on to item number 2. Clarification of agenda items.
Hearing none.
3. Information Packet Discussion [August 3,August 101
Teague: We're going to go to item number 3, information packet discussion. We'll start with
August 3rd.
Bergus: I think IP2,which was the, um,NDS annual report, actually gives like a really good
additional context maybe now that we've had that presentation go back and look at it
because there's some pieces that kind of I think fit together really well. Understanding
like for example,there have been so few duplexes built,you know, in the last several
years and this you know we're trying to kinda address the capacity for that to increase and
that kinda thing. So just wanted to call that out because it's also very nicely laid out and
very well done and very pretty. Um, so that makes it.
Alter: Digestible.
Bergus: That was just because it makes it more digestible. So thank you for that.
Teague: For future work sessions next,when we meet again,we're going to have our budget
discussion. So any priorities that council has,that'd be on our next work session. So I
wanted to give a heads-up. Okay. We're going to move on to August 10th. And then I
know we have the bow hunt program update. So I'm not sure who wants to kind of go
over IP5 memo.
Goers: I was just gonna say that first assistant Sue Dulek is here. And I know she's present
because I know Rachel normally takes charge of this topic and is unable to be here. So I
know that Sue would be happy to answer any questions you have. I don't think she has a
presentation.
Teague: Thanks.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 22
Dulek: Hello. My-my name is Sue Dulek and I can answer,uh, I think any questions. But to
date,the bow hunt has just occurred on private property and staff,uh, is looking to
expand that a little bit on some parcels of public,uh,property in light of,uh,trying to call
more of,uh, of the deer. And what staff is suggesting is- is kind of twofold as this year
to-to allow it on the Covered Wagon drive parcel down in the southern part of- of- of
Iowa City and in the future and,uh,notifying council via a similar memo that this is
going to go on this piece of public property this fall or this winter, and if that would be
acceptable to council,uh,resolution will come at one of the next meetings that will
authorize sort of limited use of- of public property and via than including this one for this
winter and then in the future via a memo,um,to council updating them or on the
proposal or on the proposed,uh,use of a particular use of public property. So staff is just
looking for some direction if that would be acceptable with council to bring back to you
in the next meeting of the meeting following that.
Alter: If I may?Um, one of the things that I remember from previous seasons,um,where people
actually being quite-the public,um,writing in with concerns about safety,honestly like
in Hickory Hill Park by Terry True Blood. Um, additionally with corpses left,um,you
know, it can be rather disturbing for families and whatnot. So I guess what I would be
interested in,um, and I don't know if this is outside the scope,but certainly as a
correlative to have a pretty comprehensive to use,um, Councilor Bergus's plan. Um,
sense of what kind of,um,public announcements like how-how would this be broadcast
that these particular public areas would be done. And I know that that is in place, so I'm
not faulting that,but I think that given that there's the suggestion of it of- of expanding
and particularly I know where Covered Wagon is I mean, it's pretty populace, so,um, it
would be very interested in knowing what the kind of precautions would be to alert the
public to-to this happening and that that would be sort of simultaneous to it coming
before us so that we can consider the two things at the same time.
Dulek: Sure. And just,uh, for- to remind Council,there are limits on where one can hunt in
terms of how close can be to a property line and how la- large a lot has to be to begin
with as well. But sure,uh, they will work on,uh,the resolution including,uh,public
notification how that will be increased when we're on public property.
Bergus: Yeah. And I think,um, along with the-the policy limitations that are in place about
where adjacent to residences and those kinds of things that it said. I think if we can have
a diagram that shows what that would mean in this particular case. So this-the image in
our packet outline just the edges of that parcel,which does make it look like we're talking
about close to those homes,but we're not. So I think being able to show people,you
know, if you were standing in Wetherby park,here's what that would mean as far as the-
the portion of that lot that could be used.
Dulek: Sure.
Bergus: Thank you.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 23
Taylor: Right. That-that was my concern because Wetherby Park is very close to that area and
Covered Wagon,we've just approved developments. It's just really like developing like
wildfire, especially since we've improved McCollister Boulevard. So a lot of homes there
and with these homeowners,uh,have to approve of also a proof of having that site so
close to their homes or- or not. I mean currently we don't have like if- if landowner says
they can,uh,hunt on my yard,uh,they just have to notify their-their neighbors,but they
don't need permission.
Dulek: They don't need the permission because the-the hunt must occur a certain distance from
the property line and so-
Taylor: Because I don't have any problem with that, I do have problem with the other kinds of
parks, like Hickory Hill you mentioned those-those kinds of really public-more public
kinds of park areas where-where children would be or people would be jogging or biking
or something, so-but this area doesn't look like it. It doesn't have a trail running through
it or anything like that so-
Bergus: Yeah. Actually notating the public access to those public parcels would be really helpful
too,because I don't think this one really has it which helps, in my opinion.
Alter: True. I was- I mean, in addition to the safety part of it, I also think it's just it's, you know,
it's proactive to be able to say,we want to make sure that you know,that this is where
this is at and,you know.
Taylor: I'm not sure that, I mean from the list of looks like the letters in the complaints that we'd
gotten, it didn't seem like there were a lot of folks in that neighborhood though that were
complaining about the population of the deer. I know there's a lot of them on the east side
a lot and the Longfellow neighborhood and I see- I saw two today, in fact,just on the
sidewalk trotting along on Sheridan Avenue, a couple of deer. But those homes are so
close together like we were talking about earlier with the developments that there-there's
not a good place for a hunter to perch on a tree and there just no good place in that
neighborhood,uh, for our bow hunt or even a sharpshooter hunt. So I don't know what
we could do about that. I mean,that's it's really seems to be increasing in that
neighborhood with the creek there and the parks and the trees. But-but this one seems
like a more open space,but it didn't seem like we were getting many complaints from-
from that neighborhood which I guess we'd have to see.
Harmsen: Do- anybody have an update on the,uh,working with the DNR to come back at some
point in the future with a sharp shooting?
Dulek: The city manager has written to the- I can't- I think it was the DNR as opposed to the
NRC asking them,uh, for some guidance on what to do because we are going into Year 4
of the bow hunt and our five-year,uh,plan. And,uh,he is not,uh,received any,uh,
response. But presumably in-within the next 6-8 months, staff will have to go back and
ask the state,uh, so but-but no.
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 24
Harmsen: Thank you.
Alter: I can attest way on- I live on the south side by the diversity market. And in the winter we
have seen upwards of 12 deer in our yard eating our bird seed. So they're- I agree with
you they're everywhere.
Teague: Yeah. They're getting around. Do you have what you need?
Dulek: I do. Thank you very much.
Teague: Thank you.
Harmsen: Oh, dear.
Teague: Any other items from August 10th?
4. University of Iowa Student Government(USG) Updates
Teague: We're going to move on to item number 4,University of Iowa student government. USG
updates. Hello,hello, and welcome back to school.
LeFevre: Thank you. . Matthew go ahead. Go ahead and introduce yourself if you like. Sorry,my
notes are-
Movsivais: All right.
LeFevre: All messed up. Go ahead.
Movsivais: Well,hello Councilors. It's really exciting to be back. Um, if I only know I went to
like one City Council session. So my name is Matthew Monsivais if you don't remember.
So yeah, I spent my summer,uh,my hometown in Ankeny. I worked at Target and
Amazon over the summer and yep. And now I'm excited to be back here. I'm a fust-time
renter and I'm excited to be more involved in present with USG so yeah.
Teague: Welcome.
Movsivais: Awesome.
LeFevre: Yeah. Get it out of the way. We now have fancy name tags and our official. Matthew's
is in the office,but I got mine yesterday. So if any- anyone including city staff ever needs
to talk to us, don't- don't be afraid. So yeah,basically,the fall semester starts next
Monday. So campus is really busy, everyone's moving in, I tried going on a run this
morning and had to avoid like 30 kids. It's not fun. I said that as if I wasn't one just like
two years ago. But,you know,that's-that's the perks of being,well a junior. Tons of On
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023
Page 25
Iowa events are going on. USG has been hosting a couple of as well. So we're trying to
get all the new students familiarized with campus,the certain resources we have,um,
some of the great things that we just had. We've had the food pantry and the clothing
closet moved downstairs in the MIU. And so now they're- instead of being in the Iowa
house hotel area,they're more in a central spot. So either members of the community and,
or University members can like actually come in and get professional clothing or donated
foodstuffs. And I think it's just an amazing idea. And it looks much nicer than what the
original places were. We'll be setting up emails here very soon. So expect an email to
your Iowa City email to basically have that setup starting hopefully we won't have at least
one with all of you individually,uh, each semester. So we'll plan on one for fall and we'll
plan on one for spring as well. Last year it was a little bit different because of,uh,me
coming in so late and everything. But this year we're going to have it kinda getting back
on track. Um, and I think that's all we have. So thank you guys so much.
Teague: Great. Thank you and welcome back again.
5. Council Updates on assigned boards, commissions, and committees
Teague: All right. We're on to item number 5, Council updates on the assigned boards,
commissions, and committees. Hearing none,we are adjourned and I will see you back at
06:00 P.M. for our formal meeting?
This represents only a reasonably accurate transcription of the Iowa City City Council work
session of August 15, 2023